A lot of people are saying he should contribute through a proxy. I don't see how this is possible, since in order to make meaningful contributions, he would have to see the source code of the project. Showing him that source code would almost certainly violate the NDA of the proxy.
Clearly Apple doesn't want him seeing the source code, anyway, since they cut off his access to it. I'm sure he's a competent coder, but I doubt he's so good that it would be worth the legal risk they would be taking by having him aboard.
I don't really know what you're talking about. The system is quite consistent. You doubleclick icons, you single click buttons. Buttons all look the same (different from icons). Why would this be hard to understand? Do you work with retarded children or something?
I've looked around and so far I can't find anything about this (and I assume this means there's no information, but I thought someone here might have a clue), but does anybody know when advance tickets for episode II will go on sale? Or does it depend on the theater?
Forget all this RIAA crap. What I'm really interested in is seeing true digital music; that is, music composed and generated by algorithms, or better yet, by artifical intelligence. Already there has been some progress made in this field. Will the musicians of tomorrow be particularly adept programmers collaborating with computers to produce a new breed of euphony? I find the prospect titillating. Not in a dirty way.
HAHA. The difference being that drug dealers and kiddie porn peddlers ARE ALL selling something that is illegal. It is not their method of solicitation ("hey you wanna buy X") but their product that gets them in hot water. Anyway, this sort of "analogy" is exactly what I was lamenting in my previous post. How can you possibly justify comparing spammers to actively deleterious members of real society like "drug dealers and kiddie porn peddlers" ?
I'd rather have them waste a few CPU cycles than give up the essential liberty of the internet; anyway, I imagine that a lot of those wasted resources (perhaps not the bandwidth) come from ineffective spam-prevention measures. It's easier just to click delete. And let's not forget that the spammers pay for bandwidth too.
It's really just not a big deal, and until you can show me some convincing numbers that suggest it is, it's going to appear to me that you people are all up in a tizzy about nothing.
Why is spam such a big deal? Why do Slashdotters go hog-wild and advocate violence against spammers, whose profession's name cannot be typed without heaps of disdain?
They're just trying to make money, and it's really not that hard to delete the stuff. As annoying as it might be (although I guess I must just be better at dealing with my anger than most of the folks here), there's nothing to indicate to me that it's illegal. Why in the world should it be illegal? This is the same Slashdot that seems to hate the idea of the government having any sort of regulatory hand in the internet at all, now clamoring for the government's legal protection from some emails?
As soon as we start allowing the government to regulate commercial email, other, less welcome regulations are sure to follow, in the ostensible interest of national security, or justice, or any of the other stock government facades.
Get a grip, guys. Police ourselves, or we will find ourselves being policed, and we won't like it.
As it's first etc, this will probably get written off as a troll, but its insight is keen. We've seen it ALL before. Microsoft has more than enough money to fend off any possible lawsuits (believe me, a little security liability case is peanuts compared to a multistate anti-trust case--I don't care that they technically lost that one, it's a testament to their legal fortitude that we haven't actually seen any results from that loss).
However, smaller companies and Open Source companies will be easily trampled by larger companies if this sort of crap were in place. Small companies don't have huge legal budgets. They can't afford to pay a settlement to make someone go away. They can't afford to litigate for a long time. So they'll be deathly afraid to develop anything risky.
Why don't we stop hating Microsoft for a second and realize that if Linux were the dominant platform then we would have scores of security holes being exploited in that system instead of Windows. It has to do with marketshare and the people who write the exploits, not the people who write the software.
Perhaps it doesn't have the same geek appeal as sci-fi or anime, but where I work the servers are named after major cities across the world. I find this to be a better choice than something geeky because everybody knows the major world cities, and so the names are extremely easy for people to remember.
As an extra special bonus, it makes you feel like you're the president or something when you're having meetings about various world cities. Or at least.. uh.. it makes me feel that way.
Yes. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that a huge part of real cracking of systems is done/would be done (in the case of terrorists bringing down something crucial) through non-computer means. Things like asking for passwords (eerily effective), bribing employees, sifting through the trash are all integral in the cracking process. Also, a computer doesn't have to be networked to accept input, so as long as the would-be cracker can gain access to the terminal (or set up his own remote terminal), the system can theoretically be cracked. Most systems are extremely insecure against these sorts of attacks.
Someone mod this up. I can't believe the parent post is +5. Many, many lives depend on secure, stable computer systems. Moreover, look for future terrorism to be computer terrorism--that may wake people up to our computer-controlled reality.
You are quite right. Just for the sake of interest, 26,000ly is approximately the distance we are from the center of the Milky Way. Glad you caught that.
Mmm. The nearest one from that association is ~500ly away. In my humblest of opinions that makes this theory pretty far-fetched, even if they've been moving away from as at a very high rate for the past few million years. Remember, they say that Antares poses no danger, and it's only 500-600ly away too.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people are saying he should contribute through a proxy. I don't see how this is possible, since in order to make meaningful contributions, he would have to see the source code of the project. Showing him that source code would almost certainly violate the NDA of the proxy.
Clearly Apple doesn't want him seeing the source code, anyway, since they cut off his access to it. I'm sure he's a competent coder, but I doubt he's so good that it would be worth the legal risk they would be taking by having him aboard.
I don't really know what you're talking about. The system is quite consistent. You doubleclick icons, you single click buttons. Buttons all look the same (different from icons). Why would this be hard to understand? Do you work with retarded children or something?
"It looks like you are frantically trying to erase the record of your having been electronically served papers. Would you like help with that?"
a beowulf cluster of anus-breathers! tic-tacs for all!
I've looked around and so far I can't find anything about this (and I assume this means there's no information, but I thought someone here might have a clue), but does anybody know when advance tickets for episode II will go on sale? Or does it depend on the theater?
Forget all this RIAA crap. What I'm really interested in is seeing true digital music; that is, music composed and generated by algorithms, or better yet, by artifical intelligence. Already there has been some progress made in this field. Will the musicians of tomorrow be particularly adept programmers collaborating with computers to produce a new breed of euphony? I find the prospect titillating. Not in a dirty way.
Groups of three are ideal, actually.
Are you attempting to be the first person to get paid to karma whore? I admit, your scheme is brilliant, but .. jeez. Can't you get a job or something?
HAHA. The difference being that drug dealers and kiddie porn peddlers ARE ALL selling something that is illegal. It is not their method of solicitation ("hey you wanna buy X") but their product that gets them in hot water. Anyway, this sort of "analogy" is exactly what I was lamenting in my previous post. How can you possibly justify comparing spammers to actively deleterious members of real society like "drug dealers and kiddie porn peddlers" ?
Um. Paper sometimes gets used for writing death threats. In blood! Let's outlaw paper and blood.
I'd rather have them waste a few CPU cycles than give up the essential liberty of the internet; anyway, I imagine that a lot of those wasted resources (perhaps not the bandwidth) come from ineffective spam-prevention measures. It's easier just to click delete. And let's not forget that the spammers pay for bandwidth too.
It's really just not a big deal, and until you can show me some convincing numbers that suggest it is, it's going to appear to me that you people are all up in a tizzy about nothing.
Why is spam such a big deal? Why do Slashdotters go hog-wild and advocate violence against spammers, whose profession's name cannot be typed without heaps of disdain?
They're just trying to make money, and it's really not that hard to delete the stuff. As annoying as it might be (although I guess I must just be better at dealing with my anger than most of the folks here), there's nothing to indicate to me that it's illegal. Why in the world should it be illegal? This is the same Slashdot that seems to hate the idea of the government having any sort of regulatory hand in the internet at all, now clamoring for the government's legal protection from some emails?
As soon as we start allowing the government to regulate commercial email, other, less welcome regulations are sure to follow, in the ostensible interest of national security, or justice, or any of the other stock government facades.
Get a grip, guys. Police ourselves, or we will find ourselves being policed, and we won't like it.
As it's first etc, this will probably get written off as a troll, but its insight is keen. We've seen it ALL before. Microsoft has more than enough money to fend off any possible lawsuits (believe me, a little security liability case is peanuts compared to a multistate anti-trust case--I don't care that they technically lost that one, it's a testament to their legal fortitude that we haven't actually seen any results from that loss).
However, smaller companies and Open Source companies will be easily trampled by larger companies if this sort of crap were in place. Small companies don't have huge legal budgets. They can't afford to pay a settlement to make someone go away. They can't afford to litigate for a long time. So they'll be deathly afraid to develop anything risky.
Why don't we stop hating Microsoft for a second and realize that if Linux were the dominant platform then we would have scores of security holes being exploited in that system instead of Windows. It has to do with marketshare and the people who write the exploits, not the people who write the software.
Beneficent advances in nuclear fission are made all the time. Check this article out.
Are you still mad that I did your mom in the arse? If you are, just say so and we can work this out.
With all the poop down there, I'll bet the signal to noise ratio is comparable to Slashdot's.
Perhaps it doesn't have the same geek appeal as sci-fi or anime, but where I work the servers are named after major cities across the world. I find this to be a better choice than something geeky because everybody knows the major world cities, and so the names are extremely easy for people to remember.
As an extra special bonus, it makes you feel like you're the president or something when you're having meetings about various world cities. Or at least.. uh.. it makes me feel that way.
Yes. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that a huge part of real cracking of systems is done/would be done (in the case of terrorists bringing down something crucial) through non-computer means. Things like asking for passwords (eerily effective), bribing employees, sifting through the trash are all integral in the cracking process. Also, a computer doesn't have to be networked to accept input, so as long as the would-be cracker can gain access to the terminal (or set up his own remote terminal), the system can theoretically be cracked. Most systems are extremely insecure against these sorts of attacks.
Someone mod this up. I can't believe the parent post is +5. Many, many lives depend on secure, stable computer systems. Moreover, look for future terrorism to be computer terrorism--that may wake people up to our computer-controlled reality.
"How do you find people willing to pontificate about what makes one system more secure than another," he naively asked Slashdot. Then came the deluge.
it's not really about luck. it's about skill and determination, and daily prayer to Allah.
You are quite right. Just for the sake of interest, 26,000ly is approximately the distance we are from the center of the Milky Way. Glad you caught that.
Mmm. The nearest one from that association is ~500ly away. In my humblest of opinions that makes this theory pretty far-fetched, even if they've been moving away from as at a very high rate for the past few million years. Remember, they say that Antares poses no danger, and it's only 500-600ly away too.
That's not funny. My dog died in a supernova. I miss you Fluffy.
Moreover, our galaxy is only about 18-26,000ly in diameter (for perspective). This article is garbage.